Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Everything posted by st!gar

  1. It's greyed-out, for me. Is it because I haven't played through all of "Survive", and have to play them in order? Because I sort of assumed this wouldn't be the case.
  2. I've been searching the main website as well as the wiki, but I can find no information as to what exactly the game's plot is. Who are the factions? Why are they there? The "Factions"-section on the website is greyed-out, so I couldn't find any info. People here seem to still know, somehow, so I figured I'd go straight to the source and ask here.
  3. Those were disappointing news. I can only hope the still-unfinished campaign will be released earlier in one of the beta-patches.
  4. st!gar

    No women at all

    No, just possess a basic ability to read. Seeing as all threads have had a healthy number of people opposed to the idea as well, I think it's also quite safe to say that a significant amount of people sincerely does not care and/or would rather BiS focused on something of actual consequence, instead. It doesn't sound stupid so much as offensive, irrational and genuinely worrying.
  5. :icon_rolleyes: This is a scenario that really should be very, very simple. *Two squads - let's just call them "A" and "B" - are moving up a hill, next to each other. *Once A reaches the summit, they proceed down the hill on the other side. Once B reaches the summit - more or less simultaneously with A, of course - they stay put and cover A's advance. *Further ahead, there's a friendly APC with a squad in transport. The squad - I'll call it "C" - has been scripted to spawn inside the APC, using the "MoveInCargo"-command. When the APC reaches a certain location, it will use the "Transport Unload" - waypoint synchronized with C's "Get Out" -waypoint to drop them off. They will then head their separate ways, to each a different objective. --- This really shouldn't be so fucking hard. --- Here's the problem, though - A and B appears to have a new-found tendency of confusing their waypoints with those of other squads. (!!!) I'll give you a specific example. A and B have both reached their positions at the top of the hill. There are some enemies down in a forest ahead, and they shoot at each other for a while. At this point, A's advance is slowed as they seek cover among a nearby rock formation. So far, so good. However, I turn to see what B is doing, and realize they are not at their position. Their sole, simple, basic purpose is to stay put at the top of the hill. That is their entire function. However, I find them halfway down the hill, headed for the APC which is in the process of unloading C. Dumbstruck, I follow them as the meticulously make their way all the way down the hill, crossing the several hundred meters of open field below, until they finally make it to the APC. By this time, it has finished unloading C, but instead of moving on to its next waypoint, it just sits there, staring stupidly ahead. As soon as B reaches the spot on the ground that was C's "Get Out"-waypoint, the APC starts moving. B then immediately turns tail and heads back up the hill, settling down on their original waypoint - the one place they were supposed to have been all along. I tried previewing the mission again, this time with myself grouped with their squad so that I could get an exact idea of what orders were given to them by the squad leader. And sure enough, a "MOVE" -waypoint appeared on screen exactly where the APC was supposed to park and deliver its troops. Subsequent re-tries yielded only more confusion. Sometimes A would head for C's waypoint while B did something else. Sometimes B would head for A's waypoint. And so on. I have absolutely no idea what causes this behaviour, but I don't think this was always the case. As I started making the mission, I recall all initially going well, but as time went on, their behaviour became more and more erratic. Unless, of course, they behaved like this all the time, but I just never picked up on it. (I find this unlikely, mind.) Is this a common issue? Is there anything I can do to fix it? Please help.
  6. Is there any way to make a squad stay at a position and not stray from it under any circumstance? By that, I don't mean that I want each individual man to be frozen to the spot where he stands, but rather that the squad as a whole doesn't leave the general area. I'm not running any mods. I want them to be able to fight the enemy, but not leave the hill they're placed on.
  7. I'm about four "missions", (for lack of a better word.), into the campaign, and I must say I'm positively surprised at how polished and "professional" it feels. (Thus far, at least.) I haven't had any scripting-fuckups; everything has appeared to run very smoothly, with lots of atmosphere and what appears to be professional-quality voice acting. I didn't expect that. Very positively surprised, so far. :)
  8. When I try to do what Demonized advised, only the squad leader starts inside the APC. The rest of the squad starts outside. Please help. This is getting really fucking infuriating.
  9. st!gar

    What exactly is ArmA 3's plot?

    So "Western NATO" is on the side of the common population, whereas "Eastern NATO" is on the side of the government?
  10. st!gar

    What exactly is ArmA 3's plot?

    So the AAF are the government forces. The FIA are insurgents who fought the FIA in a civil war. The CSAT is a some kind of alliance of Eastern countries that... wants what, exactly? And NATO doesn't particularly consider itself as an ally of either FIA or AAF. Is that right?
  11. Oh, wow. :icon_redface: I absolutely apologize. It just didn't occur to me that this was an issue anyone had actually discussed before, let alone that the developers themselves had released a statement discussing it. (I thought it was just some minor beta-bug, as opposed to a deliberate choice.) Again, sorry.
  12. ...Whereas the conventionally equipped green-clad soldiers are listed as "Independent". Surely it's supposed to be the other way around? :plain:
  13. st!gar

    OPFOR too Futuristic?

    Just to clarify; I think the problem many have with the OPFOR graphical design is not that they look too high-tech, but that they look too silly. There's a very, very, very big difference, there.
  14. st!gar

    OPFOR too Futuristic?

    I voted the "Yes they look way to SCIFI."-option, though it's only really true for the OPFOR-infantry. BLUFOR looks mostly fine, to me.
  15. st!gar

    Need Stance Indicator

    I completely and utterly disagree. A simple 2D silhouette mirroring your stance would be infinitely much more intuitive and fitting in with the HUD than your box-solution that looks like it comes straight from an Excel-spreadsheet.
  16. st!gar

    How good is the AI...?

    You shouldn't be "seriously impressed" before you make sure and check what the enemy was doing the whole time. There must have been a reason they were defeated so decisively - they may have been doing something very wrong.
  17. st!gar

    Scenarios for single player

    Can you still do that and save your game?
  18. Does anyone remember the old mod for OFP with GI Joe-characters? It was amazing.
  19. I have ArmA 2 with OA, BAF and PMC installed from STEAM. I recently bought ACR before reinstalling the games, but the content simply doesn't show up. And... that's about all there is to to say about that. Help, please?
  20. Ah. I'm assuming you know an awful lot about robotics, artificial intelligence and engineering since you can tell us exactly how it's realistic for incredibly advanced military robots from the far future to behave, then? :icon_rolleyes: